Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-2024-12-2113-2122
Issue for consideration
Whether the High Court rightly disallowed Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and rejected the second review petition in light of Petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation.
Held
Headnotes† Condemnation of unscrupulous litigation – Jumping from one forum to another despite the issue being well-settled through reasoned orders – A stark example of blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process – Forum shopping by filing repetitive and meritless pleas in Supreme Court and High Court – Repetitive and meritless pleas deliberately delays proceedings – Wastes the court’s valuable time and resources and hinders efficient addressal of genuine and timely claims:
The Petitioner repeatedly filed numerous meritless petitions, appeals and motions in multiple legal and administrative forums, even though his grievances had been well-settled through reasoned orders – The right to access the courts is a cornerstone of democracy, however, the right is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly – The Petitioner’s relentless and frivolous litigation spree has wasted the Court’s valuable time and resources, and is one of the reasons which results in choking the dockets in courts – Litigants engaging in forum shopping deliberately delay proceedings, eroding the very foundation of the legal system. [Paras 2-3, 17-18]
cost on Petitioner a clear message to others for not daring to play with the Judicial System – Duty of Courts to curb such type of litigation:
Condemning litigants who use the justice system for their benefit and attempt to pollute the streams of justice, this Court discussed raising deterrence against such frivolous pleas by imposing costs on the litigating parties – Based on previous well-reasoned orders of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as the Supreme Court found no merit in the Petition – Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was also dismissed – A cost of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) was imposed on the Petitioner to give a clear message to unscrupulous litigants who are polluting the stream of justice and putting hurdles in its dispensation to others – It is the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation that chokes the justice system resulting in delays in decision of other cases. [Paras 19-23]
(Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 56230 of 2024)
Consequences of filing frivolous appeals and petitions – Deterrence against such appeals and petitions by imposition of costs – Unscrupulous litigants polluting the stream of justice, putting hurdles in its dispensation to others – Heavy
*Author
p. 2114
Case Law Cited Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, 2014 INSC 367 : [2014] 12 SCR 573; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 INSC 1277 : [2009] 16 SCR 111; K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. (C) Diary No(s). 27458/2022 decided on 01.05.2023 – relied upon.
List of Keywords Special Leave Petition; Second Review Petition; Condonation of delay; Industrial dispute; Frivolous litigation; Forum shopping; Meritless pleas; Imposition of costs; Blatant misuse of judicial process.
Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 56230 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.06.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in IA No. 2748 of 2021 in Review Petition (L) No. 7558 of 2021
Appearances for Parties Randhir Kumar Ojha, Adv. for the Petitioner.
p. 2115
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Rajesh Bindal, J.
11. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed impugning the order dated 11.06.2024 vide which the High Court1 was pleased to disallow the petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay2 and rejected the Second Review Petition.3
22. This Special Leave Petition before us is yet another stark example of the blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process. The petitioner, seemingly blinded by his own sense of grievance, has embarked on a relentless and frivolous litigation spree, dragging this Court and the High Court through multiple meritless review petitions, appeals, and motions, all stemming from his well-reasoned removal from service. This is one of the reasons which results in choking the dockets in courts.
33. Before delving into the specifics of this case, it is imperative to underscore that the right to access the courts is a cornerstone of our democracy. However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. When litigants, like the petitioner before us, engage in forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless pleas, and deliberately delay proceedings, they erode the very foundation of our legal system.
44. Now, turning to the facts of this case in brief, as is evident from the material on record, the petitioner was employed as an Examiner with the respondent No. 1 organization since 1977. In December 1997, respondent No. 1 issued him a charge sheet for misconduct due to his frequent and prolonged absence from duty, without prior permission or intimation. Following a departmental inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and was removed from service w.e.f. 14.07.2000. His statutory appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority. The petitioner then raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) at Mumbai.
1 High Court of Bombay, Maharashtra 2 I.A. No. 2748 of 2021 3 R. P. No. 7558 of 2021
p. 2116
55. On 22.12.2006, the CGIT passed a final award upholding the petitioner’s removal from service. It ruled that the petitioner’s absences qualified as misconduct as these were “habitual” and without prior permission. Even if respondent No. 1 later regularized his absences, it did not change the fact that he had been absent without permission. The CGIT also noted that he did not seem interested in adhering to rules and regulations or exhibiting devotion to his duty. The respondent No. 1 also got a police investigation done after the domestic enquiry was initiated, which revealed that the petitioner was running a business in the name of his wife, at his native place while being employed under respondent No. 1. As the petitioner raised the defence of illness, the respondent No. 1 directed him to undergo a medical examination. He was declared medically fit to resume duty vide Medical Certificate dated 06.10.1997. However, he did not report for work until 27.01.1998. Further, he promptly took two days of leave and proceeded to be absent again for two months.
66. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 2584 of 2007, before the High Court seeking to challenge the CGIT’s award. The High Court passed a well-reasoned order and upheld the CGIT’s award dated 22.12.2009. The High Court found that the CGIT was correct in upholding the petitioner’s removal from service, considering his prolonged and frequent unauthorized absence, his lack of interest in work, and the fact that he was running a private business while being employed with respondent No. 1. The Court held that the petitioner’s actions clearly demonstrated that he was not interested in job and was not a suitable employee for respondent No. 1.
77. On 25.01.2010, the petitioner filed Review Petition No. 6 of 2010, praying for review of judgment dated 05.12.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 2584 of 2007. The Court dismissed the review petition, holding that there were no error apparent on the face of the record.
88. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 19572-19573 of 2010. This Court dismissed both petitions, finding no merit therein.
99. Dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner on 04.10.2012, filed an application to the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, seeking an inquiry against the Presiding Officer of the CGIT, Mumbai and the two High Court judges who had adjudicated his case, including the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
p. 2117
1010. A perusal of the records shows that the Review Petition No. 6 of 2010 was listed again in the year 2015, despite being dismissed already on 25.01.2010. The listing records of the case were also tallied with the web portal of the High Court and the same discrepancy was found. The Review Petition No. 6 of 2010 once again came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2015. As there is nothing on record we are not going in further details.
1111. In an attempt to revive his case, the petitioner filed Notice of Motion No. 71 of 2015, seeking the court’s permission to file a second review petit
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0